Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40813098›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2025

Mind the 'inequality' gap: intersectionality-informed scoping review of inequalities and adverse experiences of health and care workers globally.

Roomi Aziz, Anuj Kapilashrami, Reza Majdzadeh

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Roomi AzizCentre for Global Health and Intersectional Equity Research, University of Essex, Colchester, UK roomi.aziz@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-2073-4565
Anuj KapilashramiCentre for Global Health and Intersectional Equity Research, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
Reza MajdzadehCentre for Global Health and Intersectional Equity Research, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8429-5261

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextHealth and care workers' well-being is critical for comprehensive human resources for health (HRH) planning. However, system-wide factors such as wage disparities and career advancement barriers remain underexplored, while most existing planning frameworks focus on gender, ignoring other interactions shaping the HRH experiences.

objectiveTo systematically map literature on adverse HRH experiences, underlying inequalities and the resulting impact using an intersectional equity lens.

methodsA rigorous scoping protocol was developed which guided the search in four bibliographic databases (SCOPUS, Web of Science, PubMed and CINAHL Ultimate). Literature was screened by two reviewers independently, charted and thematically analysed.

resultsFrom 21 184 records, 511 articles were included. 76% of the excluded articles were duplicates, while the rest were ineligible (non-English, grey literature, irrelevant publication type, etc). The review unpacked six types of adverse experiences (invisibilisation, disproportionate scrutiny, denial of opportunities, verbal abuse, physical abuse and sexual harassment) across 72 countries. 20 social locations, such as gender, race, ethnicity, cadre and their interactions shaped these experiences.55% of these studies were based in high-income countries and only 2% in low-income countries. 45% of articles studied these experiences across only two or more social locations, with the most common combinations being race-sex. Adverse manifestations included wage disparities, career advancement barriers, poor mental health and high turnover. The existing literature lacked an equity gaze, missing the underlying systematic drivers and rarely exploring intersecting unique positionalities of health and care workers. IMPLICATIONS: Using an intersectionality lens, this scoping review identifies three key gaps: regional evidence imbalances, lack of an explicit intersectional equity focus and absence of translation of the scant intersectional evidence into HRH policy tools. These gaps restrict global HRH planning and hinder the development of inclusive, context-specific strategies-especially in low- and middle-income countries facing the most severe workforce challenges.

Indexed as

Global HealthHealthcare DisparitiesHealth PersonnelHumansSocioeconomic FactorsHealth policies and all other topicsHealth policyHealth systems

Identifiers

PMID40813098
PMCPMC12352149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.